PWN of a Derivative

Found this here. I didn’t add everything, just the ones I find very funny.

• I look stupid on the crowd. Everybody is from far greater schools than me. UP graduates here and there, UST, FEU, and there am I. I would never raise my hands though, when the librarian was calling people from schools she was mentioning. She did say that she practised in UERM, though only on a limited time. I also would have answered her question about fees for library use.
• I am not good with names. I can compensate, however, because I am very good with faces. Apparently, so good that I can still remember those faces who came up to me while I was in the application process. Of course they will never remember me, being just a weed on a vast field. Still, it is good if there are people who can recognize you and call you by name.
• Tomorrow, a morning with our dentist. A day after that, I will be moving away from my home for the three months. I spent my summer in my aunt’s home because our home was being renovated. And now I get to live on it again.
• Apparently, the well-dressed lady me and my mother have been seeing lurking the office of CM is the Dean. I wouldn’t have guessed. She fortunately sounds fun and looks the part too.
• I have tons of questions. I was only afraid of the microphone. I would have done it if others did, too; I would also have done it if I have somebody to urge me. But I let it pass. To add, the doctor who interviewed me was there. Yes, the doctor who said, “yes, your honor,” on his last question directed to me was there. I was half-annoyed back then. That is why I have an inkling that I failed on the interview part; confrontation and consequent revelation, thus, is not an option.
• If I did the Dean’s speech, I would have added there in the end: “and please, future doctors, take care of yourselves. Remember, you have to be alive to be a doctor.” I would have laughed my head off if she will say that.

Disclaimer: Heto ang naisip ko kanina habang nasa jeep ako. ‘Yan tuloy lumagpas ako at napunta sa Masinag ng hindi sinasadya. Tinitigan pa ako ni manong tsuper kasi kulang daw ang binayad ko, kulang katulad ng binabayad ng ibang tao kapag nagbabayad sila kasabay ng pagbaba nila ng jeep. Wala akong sinabi, tinitigan ko rin siya. To return the favor. Hehe. At stream-of-consciousness ang pagsusulat ko, so expectedly may grammatical errors diyan somewhere.

——-

When you come to office at around nine in the morning, even if you are expected to come in at eight o’clock sharp, no questions asked, you are reprimanded. If you do it again and again, almost expectedly, you will be fired from the office by your higher-up. It is the law; it is the process of the system to check itself of errors and correct it without discrimination. It is the line of command, you being checked by your superior, and the latter being checked by his superior, and so on. This information is guised in the organizational chart present in any office. This information, however, begs the question: if you are the highest-up, who is your superior? Relating it to the issue, if you are the president, the highest in the executive branch, or the senate president, the highest in the legislative branch, or the chief justice, the highest in the judicial branch, who is your highest-up?

This, I believe, is where the term “impeachable officers” comes in. When the system checks itself and corrects the errors it finds, one must recognize that however a man is the highest in his order, the system will still believe that he is but a part of it. We are not talking here that the system is either the executive, the legislative or the judiciary; those three are all under one system. This system I do not know what to call, as I am not a lawyer; I am but a layman who, as lawyers are guided by law and shall therefore execute his matters while being mindful of law, is mindful of logic and shall do likewise matters in a logical manner. Impeachment is a manner of seeking and checking for errors amongst the highest-ups of each of its limbs, being the three powers of the state. I know that a president can never be booted out of the office by his cronies, likewise in the other sectors; that is why impeachment is made. It likened to a pal touching his pal’s shoulder while whispering, “psst, parang mali ‘yang ginagawa mo.” It is where someone powerful is checked by somebody equally powerful as the former is, rightfully trying and judging the same if needed. I want to believe that this is the essence of the power vested to the Senate. Senate is the people, and the people you see on your television sets are but the people’s representatives, no more. 

Now, on to the two points.

First: it is wrong to look at it and liken it to the case of the court translator. If you do not know, this court translator failed to place her market stall as an asset, thus she was fired from her office. The procedure is correct, yes, but it does not apply to the CJ. I believe that the judiciary’s rules regarding that applies to anybody except to its highest-up, for that power does not belong to the judiciary per se. That power is vested on the system. Impeachment is the only manner of trying and judging the CJ. That is why I believe the aforementioned case is never relevant. They should not have pointed at it and held it as if it is true.

Second and the most special: failure to place the exact (repeat, exact) amount on your SALN is not an impeachable offense (I would like to thank Madam Defensor-Santiago for lecturing me regarding this; I can somehow feel that her words, though heavy, are directed to laymen who can understand law though not lawyers). How is an error committed that is worthy of reprimand as the law dictates a high crime? How is the placement of a meager fraction of the real amount in his SALN tantamount to a culpable violation of the constitution (repeat, constitution)? If a law states that if he commits an error he can correct it, then by all means he must; the promise of correcting it is reason enough for belief of honest mistake and for him to be given time to do good on the next execution of his SALN. I believe it is not a high crime, unless there is something to it. Is the money not placed on his SALN from wrongdoings? Did he steal? If he did not, or if the evidences either says no or there is not enough evidence, then I believe it is not a high crime. In no way is the wealth proven to be ill-gotten as evidenced by proper papers and such. Or, if there are glimpses right there, it is not enough to convict the man that he did steal money.

Like what Madam Defensor Santiago said, the preponderance is there but it is not overwhelming.